SSU extension: Liquid (flyback) boosters

[Urwumpe]

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980237254_1998377048.pdf

Does this sound like something interesting or is it too far off for SSU?

 

[T.Neo]

Just how would the flyback booster "fly back"?
Under autopilot?
I don't like the idea of flying three craft at once... :blackeye:

 

[Donamy]

That would be awesome, if it could be done.

 

[Urwumpe]

That would be awesome, if it could be done.

I see only little reasons against making it possible. It does not need complex autopilots.

 

[T.Neo]

I see only little reasons against making it possible.

What would these reasons be?

 

[Urwumpe]

What would these reasons be?

getting the aerodynamics stable enough for allowing a simple autopilot to land the boosters. Would maybe be good to first test such a autopilot on a T-38 chase plane.

 

[DarkWanderer]

Would maybe be good to first test such a autopilot on a T-38 chase plane.

It was already tested even for F-16, not the most easy aircraft to fly.

 

[Urwumpe]

It was already tested even for F-16, not the most easy aircraft to fly.

I hesitate calling the F-16 am difficult aircraft to fly (that would be more likely the F-104), also I mean "doing this in Orbiter." I know that it is possible and was done often enough, the F-18 has even a limited auto-land for carriers. But I have not done it myself.

 

[DarkWanderer]

I hesitate calling the F-16 a difficult aircraft to fly (that would be more likely the F-104), also I mean "doing this in Orbiter." I know that it is possible and was done often enough, the F-18 has even a limited auto-land for carriers. But I have not done it myself.

Well, the point is that F-16 was landed fully autonomous, from distant approach to touchdown - while present systems are really semi-automatic. What I mean by "not the most easy" is that it's statically unstable, what is compensated by FLCS. By analogy the boosters don't really need a good aerodynamics - a state-of-the-art FLCS and autopilot (which is already ready to fit on almost any type of aircraft) will do the trick.

Sorry for troll-like comment

In orbiter, anyways, you don't get problems with static unstabilities, stalling, dutch roll and so on, so this feature won't take quarter of Lockheed Martin to implement .

 

[Urwumpe]

In orbiter, anyways, you don't get problems with static unstabilities, stalling, dutch roll and so on, so this feature won't take quarter of Lockheed Martin to implement .

You might be surprised, which aerodynamic phenomena I had already seen in Orbiter :rofl: You can even create stuff, which is luckily physically impossible.

Important would be getting a working descend rate hold autopilot and course hold (not even just heading, but staying on a virtual line).

 

[DarkWanderer]

You might be surprised, which aerodynamic phenomena I had already seen in Orbiter :rofl: You can even create stuff, which is luckily physically impossible.

Important would be getting a working descend rate hold autopilot and course hold (not even just heading, but staying on a virtual line).

Yeah, and it should feature some kind of adaptive algorhytm to get a fair asymptotic solution for any craft. Interesting task.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yeah, and it should feature some kind of adaptive algorhytm to get a fair asymptotic solution for any craft. Interesting task.

PID-T1 controllers usually. In the best case, you can make them imitate a PD-T1 or PI controller.

And the target rates would be usually calculated by fuzzy logic... or simpler.

 

[DarkWanderer]

PID-T1 controllers usually. In the best case, you can make them imitate a PD-T1 or PI controller.

And the target rates would be usually calculated by fuzzy logic... or simpler.

Well, what's the problem then?

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, what's the problem then?

You know, having an idea is nothing, having an implementation everything.

 

[Donamy]

how about a gliding water landing ? Empty tanks would float nicely.

 

[T.Neo]

how about a gliding water landing ? Empty tanks would float nicely.

Corrosion. Salt water is very corrisive.
Not good for a complex liquid fueled booster...

 

[Urwumpe]

how about a gliding water landing ? Empty tanks would float nicely.

Corrosion. Salt water is very corrisive.
Not good for a complex liquid fueled booster...

Exactly. Even a manned splash down of a skilled pilot has many risks, unmanned, I would not even think about at 120 KEAS.

Also you have again the recovery costs, which can quickly be more expensive as developing an automatic landing guidance.

Fly-back boosters are R&D heavy, but have clear economic advantages, which justify this.

 

[sputnik]

Urwumpe,

I look forward to it!

A question, though: would it not make more sense to make it as a Velcro Rocket, rather than haning another piece of code on SSU? Or is there a reason this won't work. (Is it an area where I should improve Velcro Rockets?).
I love alternate shuttle boosters, for some reason; it's why I've done so many....

 

[T.Neo]

Well, if the flyback is to have a custom .dll, I would see using velcro as rather redundant.
Maybe it could use a velcro based system to attach to the Shuttle.

 

[Urwumpe]

A question, though: would it not make more sense to make it as a Velcro Rocket, rather than haning another piece of code on SSU?

Well, for us it makes no sense to make it a Velcro rocket, as we try to reduce the dependences on other add-ons and also integrate the boosters deeper into the shuttle simulation.

Or is there a reason this won't work. (Is it an area where I should improve Velcro Rockets?).
I love alternate shuttle boosters, for some reason; it's why I've done so many....

No reason why this should not work, but we just politically try to avoid this. If we can solve this, there is only little which prevents you from using the boosters and there code as basis for a Velcro version of it, as far as I remember, you use the same open-source license as we do.